At long last, the pushback against Donald Trump has truly begun. Peter Wehner
led the way in January, explaining “Why I Will Never Vote for Donald Trump.” National
Review devoted an entire issue
to taking Trump down. Erick Erickson recently recanted his previous position
and announced
“I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump. Ever.” Rick Wilson joined
the chorus, adding for flavor “With God as My Witness, I Will Never Vote for
Donald Trump.”

Robert Kagan shocked
the Internet by announcing not only that he would never vote for Trump, but
that he would vote for Hillary Clinton instead. Matt Walsh wrote
one of the best pieces, turning Trumpian rhetoric and logic against Trump
supporters, “telling it like it is” to them with unvarnished (and nearly
unhinged) brutality. Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz finally unleashed a
barrage of attacks on him since CNN’s debate in Houston. Over the
weekend #NeverTrump was trending on Twitter.

With few exceptions, however, I think most Trump critics actually miss the
point and have failed to articulate the strongest and most important reason to
oppose him.

The case against Trump does not rest, ultimately, on his family life, his
divorces, his casinos, strip clubs, bankruptcies, and lawsuits. It doesn’t rest
on his personality: his generally mean-spirited demeanor, his lack of polish,
his erratic temperament, weird hair, or vulgarity. Nor does it even rest on
policy differences—his past support for Democrats, gun control, abortion,
Planned Parenthood, or his generally awful foreign
policy.

All these things are true, and some are good reasons for conservatives not to
vote for him. A vote for Trump is a vote against the principles that
Republicanism and conservatism are built on.

But I believe the case against Trump should go even further. I believe no
American, conservative or liberal, should support Trump. He doesn’t simply
violate conservative principles. He violates American principles.
Donald Trump is a danger to self-government, civil liberties, the culture of
democracy, and the ideals of a free and open society.

1. Donald Trump Admires Tyrants

In December, Trump openly admired
Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him a “strong leader.” Putin is, of
course, a dictator who shut down independent media, imprisoned political
opponents like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, rigged elections, and almost certainly
ordered the murders of opposition figures Alexander Litvinenko and Boris
Nemtsov. (Trump went out of his way to deny that anyone has proven Putin’s
guilt). Russia is “not free,” according to Freedom House, which catalogs a long
list of the Putin regime’s oppressions.

Putin has shut down independent media, imprisoned political opponents, rigged
elections, and almost certainly ordered the murders of opposition figures.

When challenged on Putin’s record, Trump responded, “He’s running his country,
and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.” How can you
escape the conclusion that Trump admires Putin and, if given the opportunity,
intends to import Putin-style “leadership” to America through his election to
the White House?

This is apparently a pattern with Trump. Back in 1990, he was asked about
China’s response to the Tiananmen Square student protests. If you need a
refresher, the Chinese government murdered hundreds, perhaps thousands, and
arrested some 10,000 people because they asked the government to stop murdering
people. Trump praised
the crackdown: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese
government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they
put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”

2. Donald Trump Encourages Violence

Last week a protester interrupted a Trump rally. As security escorted him out,
Trump told
his supporters, “You know what they used to do to guys like that in a place
like this? He’d go out in a stretcher.” He added, “I’d like to punch him in the
face.”

Again, this is part of a pattern. Late last year a Black Lives Matter activist
was shoved and kicked at a Trump rally. Trump told the crowd “maybe he should
have been roughed up.”

Public officials and celebrities set examples and help define the culture of
what is “acceptable” and what is taboo. When Obama “evolved” his position on
gay marriage and came out in support of it, he made it acceptable and easy for
millions of Americans to follow suit. When Trump uses his considerable
influence as a celebrity and presidential candidate to praise violence, it
removes a small chink from the armor of civilization.

3. Donald Trump Wants to Police
Speech

Last week Trump advocated
altering libel laws to enable the government to sue newspapers for “purposely
negative and horrible and false articles.” He gave several examples of media
outlets he’d like to be able to sue for their coverage of him, including TheNew York Times and Washington Post.

Libel is, of course, an actual crime. But the courts, in deference to the First
Amendment, have made it hard to successfully prosecute a libel case—and nearly
impossible for public figures to do so. Freewheeling, raucous debate is an
essential part of what makes democracy work. Having to look over your shoulder
before criticizing a public official is exactly the kind of culture of
suspicion and fear that the American Founders believed to be un-American.

4. Donald Trump Does Not Believe in
Equality Under Law

After the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino last November, Trump
made a series of proposals he claimed would enhance homeland security. He
proposed to ban
all Muslims from entering the United States. He called
for increased surveillance of mosques. He called
for a database to track all Syrian refugees, and did not rule out tracking all
Muslims in America.

A society that protects the rights of all except the unpopular is not a truly
open society.

At least one of these proposals is sound—the FBI already conducts surveillance
on some mosques in the United States. But a general database and a “Muslim ban”
is a blatant assault on the principles of a free and open society and of
equality under the law.

Trump approvingly cited
President Franklin Roosevelt, who issued proclamations severely restricting the
rights and freedoms of Japanese, Italian, and German citizens living in the
United States during World War II. Later investigations concluded that
Roosevelt’s actions were not justified on military necessity and did not
contribute to the war effort, and are usually seen as a black mark on
Roosevelt’s record.

Trump is appealing to the majority of Americans—to the 99 percent who are not
Muslims. But consider: one of the major concerns of The Federalist Papers
was how to protect the rights of the minority. It is relatively easy to have a
system of government that protects the majority. By virtue of their numbers,
they usually run the government and use it for their benefit. The true test of
democracy is how it treats minorities. A society that protects the rights of
all except the unpopular is not a truly open society. It is a society that will
gradually shrink in on itself, unbothered by outside opinions and critical
voices.

There are tools for conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
against suspected terrorist targets that do not involve banning or spying on an
entire minority population. The NSA’s purported Terrorist Surveillance Program
was one.

5. Trump Is an American Fascist

The case against Trump, then, is that he is an autocrat in democrat’s clothing,
a tyrant in the wings, a bully who admires the “strength” of tyrants and
butchers, who finds a free press to be an inconvenience that he intends to tame
with legal force once elected, a man who demonizes opponents and romanticizes
violence, especially against minorities, who pines for the day when government
could have its way with people without the trouble of constitutional law
getting in the way.

You don’t have to go full Hitler to be a danger to the culture of a free
society. Most dictators in history, in fact, have not stooped to Hitlerian
levels of barbarism and madness.

In other words, Donald Trump is
a fascist. Or, at least, as close to a fascist as America’s
political culture is ever going to produce. As Wehner rightly said, Trump is “a
demagogic figure who does not view himself as part of our constitutional system
but rather as an alternative to it.” It is startling how few of the
contributors to the National Review symposium—David Boaz and Ben
Domenech excepted—got this right.

Some readers will dismiss my argument right off as alarmist nonsense. Trump is
no Hitler, they say. Calling Trump a dangerous autocrat and quasi-fascist only
shows how paranoid and unhinged I and other Trump critics have become.

Maybe. But you don’t have to go full Hitler to be a danger to the culture of a
free society. Most dictators in history, in fact, have not stooped to Hitlerian
levels of barbarism and madness. Benito Mussolini was far less bloodthirsty and
megalomaniacal, but still hated democracy. Silvio Berlusconi—another celebrity
billionaire businessman who rose to political power—clearly abused the legal
system and his access to power to hide his criminality. There are even “good”
dictators, like Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, who (claimed to) rule guided by
enlightened liberal principles.
‘Trump isn’t Hitler’ isn’t a defense; it’s an excuse.

None of that excuses autocracy or fascist leanings. “Trump isn’t Hitler” isn’t
a defense; it’s an excuse—a way of letting Trump get as close to the line of
actual fascism without stepping over it. If we let him close to that line he
will, like a toddler, slip a toe over, then a foot, to test us and see how far
he can really go. We shouldn’t have to wait for someone to go full Hitler to
recognize a danger to our system of government.

Besides, even Hitler wasn’t “Hitler” when he was running for office in 1928 and
1932. He hadn’t yet brought down democracy in Europe, started the most
catastrophic war in all history, and murdered millions. He was just a powerful
orator who knew how to connect with everyday people—mainly by exploiting their
fears and anxieties over economic dislocation, racial tension, and their belief
that they just didn’t win anymore. He wanted to help make Germany great again,
and Germans agreed. The rest is history.

Paul D. Miller teaches public policy at The University of Texas at Austin.
He is a research fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He
previously served on the National Security Council Staff from 2007 through
2009. Follow him on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com